eh

slightly off, then

my bad for not remembering the study perfectly

IQ isn't the only, or largest predictor

well yes even a retard get become filithy rich

see: the 45th president of the united states

because todays society is fucked

yay inheritance

anyhow

Beyond IQ not being the largest predictor

it's also not useful in determining intelligence

as there's a myriad of types of intelligence

see: all mainstream actors, artists, etc...

going by gardner...

musical-rhythmic,
visual-spatial,
verbal-linguistic,
logical-mathematical,
bodily-kinesthetic,
interpersonal,
intrapersonal, and
naturalistic.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/beautiful-minds/200909/the-truth-about-the-termites

http://www.intelltheory.com/terman.shtml

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Terman

Here's some, I'm reading some others

yes a retard turns 1 million into 10 billion

ok

oh wait

I found a new york times article about it, but it dances around the IQ thing, just pointing out that other factors exist

It doesn't really have any information in it of substance

just common sense

"Let us give Terman the benefit of the doubt and post that all 2,000 scientific and technical publications were produced by the 70 who made it into American Men of Science. That implies that, on average, Terman's notable scientists produced about 29 publications by the time they had reached their mid-40s. In contrast, American Nobel laureates in the sciences averaged about 38 publications by the time they were 39 years old, and claimed about 59 publications by their mid-40s. THat amounts to a twofold disparity in output. Hence, Terman's intellectual elite was not of the same caliber as the true scientific elite of the same nation and era."

Another analysis shows that the accomplishments of the "Termites" could have been predicted on their socioeconomic status alone. These were mostly white, middle to upper middle class men with opportunities and resources for success. Some argue that it wasn't even necessary for Terman to analyze the IQ dimension--he could have stopped with SES and call it a day.

Yes,I linked you a neutral article

And you went to the author's note

to disprove my point

For the record, I've never even looked into this study, so I don't know if it's even reliable @SilverLining

and I will not use it as a source

But you did present it as evidence and, from what little time I just spent reading over it, it does not conclude with the same results you claimed it did

it does to a large degree

It kind of doesn't....

It just points out that IQ isn't the end all be all

which is true

Not that it's useless

eh, that IQ isn't the be all end all is what I'm really trying to get at

You said it was terrible and unreliable, but it's getting into semantics at this point

The point is, the study did not conclude IQ wasn't invalid, just that it was far from perfect

oh

that IQ is terrible and unreliable is another point

that there's a minimal, arguably negligible correlation between IQ and success is separated from that

it wasn't negligible as far as this study is concerned, but I've barely look into it so I will not use this as personal proof

it is a fairly old study, so *maybe* it's wrong

you're not... digging into the study, then

one that has been overseen by different people

the point isn't that some people who were termites achieved great things

but rather, that many of those overlooked reached greater heights

On average, they were better off than their peers

and that many of those with termites were...

That does not at all contradict what I just said

well, near average

iirc

On average, they were above average.

Outliers don't really disprove that

it mentioned like...

let me find it

@SilverLining The NYT did mention that C students who were "Termites" did see less success than those who made "As"

"He found that gifted children did not fit the existing stereotypes often associated with them: they were not weak and sickly social misfits, but in fact were generally taller, in better health, better developed physically, and better adapted socially than other children."

physically, yes

they probably were better off

Which actually kinda forwards the well-proven notion that IQ is correlated to nutrition and education

Alright

You're not staying within the boundaries of what is currently being argued

Whether or not IQ is correlated with nutrition is irrelevant right now

I know, but you mentioned they were "better off"

Also

that's one of the ways

From the same wikipedia article you just quoted

literally

the primary way mentioned

the next line

"Additionally, those in the gifted group were generally successful in their careers: Many received awards recognizing their achievements. Though many of the children reached exceptional heights in adulthood, not all did. Terman explored the causes of obvious talent not being realized, exploring personal obstacles, education, and lack of opportunity as causes."

that was psychology today

not wikipedia

it was in wikipedia, too, but it doesn't matter

I'm not attacking the use of wikipedia

I was going through the tabs holding control f

trying to find that

also

on wikipedia

"However, the majority of study participants' lives were more mundane. By the 4th volume of Genetic Studies of Genius, Terman had noted that as adults, his subjects pursued common occupations "as humble as those of policeman, seaman, typist and filing clerk""

also

"Moreover, Terman meddled in his subject's lives, giving them letters of recommendation for jobs and college and pulling strings at Stanford to help them get admitted."

So they did have innate advantages

and terman's writings, in which he admitted there wasn't a strong correlation, were still biased

Okay, again

as he desperately wanted this study to prove something

What is being argued is not that this study means anything

I already said it would be dumb on my part to cite a study I've never even looked in to

The point is that it does not reach the conclusions you claimed it did

" terman's writings, in which he admitted there wasn't a strong correlation, were still biased"

He didn't say that, I just read the quote you sent me

Why would he reference his study anyway if he thought it disproved himself?

"we have seen that intellect and achievement"

From what I understand he was proud of it

how does that not admit that there isn't a strong correlation?

From everything I just saw looking it up the study doesn't contradict the idea that IQ is correlated to success.

At most it is inconclusive

^

eh

fine, whatever

right

this isn't an important point anyway

it doesn't matter what the findings of his study were

That's a VERY big difference when it comes to science

so it shouldn't be used as a source

we spent way too much time arguing something minor that can be seen from both points, depending on how you wish to construe it

Tainted or inconclusive <:unequal:473954748517842954> no correlation

if he meddled in their lives it sort of is a bad source

the context in which I read said source presented it in an entirely different way

Anyhow

Well it's easy for agenda pushers on either side to twist the findings around

Beyond that, there's still a myriad of issues with IQ itself

Most of the objections are trivial or political

Many critics argue for even worse things than IQ

IQ is *currently* the best we have

not really

it neglects so many factors and other forms of intelligence

Also, to your credit, from what I read while it did find on average that their incomes were higher, the difference was certainly noticeable but non substantial since they pursued normal occupations @SilverLining

Those other forms of intelligence have lower predictive power than IQ

in general*

that's what I was trying to point out, more or less

that there was a negligible impact

I didn't gather that the impact was negligible

just that it wasn't as great as predicted

two different things

relatively minimal, at any rate

which in coordination with the vast number of surpassing outliers

To your arbitrary standard

That wasn't what I gathered, but let's move on

means that one shouldn't base any policies upon IQ

anyhow

beyond the test

and I'm sure you probably read this when reading the study...

IQ correlates heavily to nutrition and education...

or just socioeconomic background in general

Those things have truth to them, but the extent to which they impact it are pretty debatable

to an incredibly large extent

why am I arguing this at 2 am

I'm gonna go to sleep

good night

I mean

so like what are our thoughts on the swedish election

guessing a social dem-green-left coalition

I've already outlined the coalitions. its the social democrats and greens against every other party

i’m not an expert on swedish politics but i would assume there would at least be one or two parties other than the greens willing to help in a coalition to stop the sweden democrats getting into power

@ham addition not likely to happen

About the same odds that CDU and AfD will form a peaceful coalition

alright what’s your prediction then

as far as IQ goes, most of it has to do with nutrition i the neonatal period of life, where lack of calories is devestating, later it becomes less noticable, and eventually in adulthood you cant really modify your IQ that much with just nutrition, if at all.

and I have still no idea who we should hope for in sweden however as far as anything goes

False

Iq depends on ancestry as well

Inbreeding etc

I predict that politically very little will change, Sweden might become a little more right wing, with pressure before taking a major left wing swing once again, eventually this may very well see sweden basically seperating into a southern shit hole and a northern chad

Sorry i misspoke

I meant to say as far as the nutrition part of it goes, most of .....

rather i made a blanket statement *facepalm*

MUH nutrition

I mean in neonatal you lose 1 IQ point for some every X tie you are malnourished, it can literally make someone retarded which is why its important

and the speed is veyr very fast, but generally how does this relate to "true" IQ, maximum potential IDK, I just know how nutrition affects

it, IQ is also great for diagnostics

@Bogatyr Bogumir is right, in that it has great effect on your actual IQ, but no amount of good nutritional diet can raise your biological potential

looks like it’s going to be a leftist coalition in the election

sweden democrats only 16% in exit polls and left at 10%

social democrats 25%

What happened to there are only four parties?

what

In <#452955220473806859>

i was talking about the options in the poll

that there were only four parties in the poll

But that is what I was talking about too, when I said or their coalition too. A vote for Sweden democrats in the poll could be interpreted as a vote for their coalition

there doesn’t appear to be any other major party willing to form a coalition with them though

Sometimes they do strange things in times of desperation, we'll see what happens

yeah i was going to say

the centre-right might if there’s no other option

might end up with a minority government though

I don't know about in Sweden, but a lot of centre right parties in Europe seem scared of the farther right parties

not surprising

80% of intelligence is genetic.

at most

On the low low end about 60%.

High end closer to 90%.

IQ debates are gay

The Liberal giving us shit that IQ based on ancestry or biology has no evidence, very big gay, just like most Liberals.

I love my gay like I love my bank account

Big

You big gay

It is based on ancestry, take race out of the equation for a second

There's no fucking way someone can acknowledge some diseases are heritable, but suddenly deny the heritability of intelligence

People like Alt Hype, Jay Dyer and Naked Ape have the best arguments for race realism.

Leftist thought is just a bunch of self-contradictions, after all

That is true

Mental retardation is also hereditary

>Champion of the working class
>Open borders

So why can't IQ be?

The effects of drugs, alcohol and tobacco are also hereditary

because it contradicts their underlying belief

Which is that all human beings are equal not only before the law, but in terms of capability

This other guy was arguing that Nuitrition effects IQ LOL

Loosely what they believe, there are several variations of that

They claim to believe in moral relativism, but they really fucking don't

Liberals believe in so many different things for their narratives, i've lost count.

They believe in their own brand of moral absolutism

I thought they were moral relativists.

well they're not liberals

Liberals actually would believe in moral relativism, but the modern left is completely uncompromising

This person is a syndie

So you are saying the other left is just kike controlled?

>implying the right isn't either

All I'm saying is that liberalism doesn't exactly fit their ideology

I never said the right isn't either

I know

I'm just being edgy

Both of the parties share a flavor of each other

They are both gay and wrong and I am right.

Conservatism has some elements of extreme Liberalism and Liberalism has some extreme elements of Conservatism.

Most of it's degenerate and socialist tho

Hot take: Most socialists are not socialist

Case in point

Bernie fucking Sanders

He is not a socialist or a democratic socialist

He is a social Democrat

The names may sound similar, but they are two different things

Social democracies are still driven by private property

I am signing off now for the time being, need to do classwork

Still pretty fucking similar lol, all of them are gay.

@The Big Oof theyre pretty close to socialist considering the only other realistically achievable type is a socialist dictatorship which typically fails the whole point altogether

^

No

Socialism is social ownership

Social democracies are capitalist with heavy market regulation

That's a huge leap

Germany is a social democracy

has been since the end off ww2

Saying "they're pretty close to socialism" is just completely wrong

@The Big Oof soc Dems are socialists

Socialists are communists

communists are socialists

but not the other way around

the point of socialism is communism though

social democracy is just socialism for a country where a socialist can't get their way

^

@campodin it's still socialism, or always leads to it

@Doctor Anon it’s like “we wanna be socialist but socialism is shit, so let’s alter the whole definition just to call ourselves it”

They're still shit socialists, i don't know why you have to buy into their lies that they aren't, they literally just change the labels around and change small things, at their core they are all socialists and many socialist countries have failed when they went too far.

What is the difference between Venezuela, Brazil when those are social democracy inspired countries, how are their failures any different to similar ideologies in Germany?

This

Venezuela is not a social democracy wtf

They're Democratic Socialists

Those are two different things, and the difference is greater than the names would imply